A900 SAL 70-300mm G strong backlight

[David Kilpatrick]

One more from today - lone fisher on the Tweed with evening sky:



Again, the full size is on pBase and pretty large -

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/103397708

The lens is not as crisp as expected but you can see the fishing line is clearly resolved - think about it!

David

[David Kilpatrick]

The 7Hi and the A2 will both do much better sunsets than any DSLR - for one reason or another, they have incredible headroom. Some of my best true sunsets, with good sky colour, have been A2 shot and I've had other cameras alongside for the same views. The Nikon D70S for example had clipped colours two stops worse than the A2, and the Sigma SD9 could not shoot sunsets at all (the filter inside the camera produces serious reflection problems). But, of course, sunset is easier than 90 minutes before sunset - my sky was still very bright with the sun well above the horizon.

David

[Dr. Harout]

The 7Hi and the A2 will both do much better sunsets than any DSLR - for one reason or another, they have incredible headroom. Some of my best true sunsets, with good sky colour, have been A2 shot and I've had other cameras alongside for the same views. The Nikon D70S for example had clipped colours two stops worse than the A2, and the Sigma SD9 could not shoot sunsets at all (the filter inside the camera produces serious reflection problems). But, of course, sunset is easier than 90 minutes before sunset - my sky was still very bright with the sun well above the horizon.

David

So, is it good or is it bad? As I see it from this picture you can even see the fences on the background, the fishing line is visible... so where's the bad part. The edges are also fine, though the focus was not there but you may notice some details.
So the point is, should we consider again the 70-300 G ?

[David Kilpatrick]

So the point is, should we consider again the 70-300 G ?

Unless you are willing to wait for the 70-400mm G and spend the money! I was not saying the 70-300mm SSM G is bad - just that the 70-400mm SSM G seems to be much better, in a different class of lens entirely.

David

[Philip]

I played with my 70-300G on my A900 yesterday and concur with you on this, David. It is usable, but having used it on the A700 expected (probably unrealistically) slightly better things. My example suffers from a touch of vignetting, which is quite well controlled by about f8, but the edges are softer then I was expecting, given it's previous performance.

Philip

[David Kilpatrick]

I played with my 70-300G on my A900 yesterday and concur with you on this, David. It is usable, but having used it on the A700 expected (probably unrealistically) slightly better things. My example suffers from a touch of vignetting, which is quite well controlled by about f8, but the edges are softer then I was expecting, given it's previous performance.

Philip

Exactly my findings. The image is very clean - no smearing, no CA, no 'dirty' aberrations at all - but the vignetting with slight loss of fine sharpness, as you get to the field edges, is unexpected. So is the distortion, I have been testing the 100-300mm APO D and I am sure it has lower distortion at 300mm. It looks as if this lens was really designed to be superb with the A700 and acceptable on full frame. That's not what I assumed when I bought it. I thought the extra weight, the larger glass and the sheer size of it meant they had built it up to be a fantastic full-framer.

No doubt this message from a couple of early 900 users with 70-300mm SSM Gs will not be welcomed (shoot the messenger is the usual reaction) but I guess we are both able to see things clearly, without the usual rose-tinted specs conveyed by proprietorship of the goods involved!

My experience today with the 100-300mm does indicate that the 70-300mm is preferable. If for nothing else but the closer focus - I was pushed to the front of people, with lorikeets feeding about four feet away; the 100-300mm only focuses to 1.5m, couldn't shoot until people had cleared away, and then I risked someone just pushing in front of me. I know the repro ratio with the 70-300mm is the same, but that extra one foot closer you can stand really counts. For the same reason, after thinking hard about using my 24-105mm, I opted for the 28-75mm - not only is it a much better lens with low distortion, it focuses to 1 foot instead of 2 feet and produces a larger image scale.

David

[Matt_Atkinson]

Actually got to have a play with this combination today at work (customer's camera, not our stock), and I was extremely impressed
I've heard the 70-300G didn't have the fastest AF considering it's got SSM, but to me on the A900 it felt a lot faster than my A100 focussing with the 50mm f1.4 which I thought was supposed to be one of the faster focussing lenses available for A-mount?
That viewfinder was absolutely amazing too, it was so big it felt like looking through a shop window!
Unfortunately I can't afford an A900 right now, but the 70-300G is at the top of my wish list.

[maratrs13]

Unless you are willing to wait for the 70-400mm G and spend the money! I was not saying the 70-300mm SSM G is bad - just that the 70-400mm SSM G seems to be much better, in a different class of lens entirely.

David

Sure it should be better considering its price tag - almost twice as expensive compared to 70-300! It might be compared to 70-200/2.8 in this regard, IMHO. : Besides, it is exactly the same amount amount heavier. Though I don't know if the weight is anyhow related to the IQ...

Marat.